Talk:G8+5

Doubt

Due to the lack of positive sources and the strange composition of the article I believe this should be deleted from Wikipedia. It is unimportant and not factual. It is engineered in a manner assuming "G8 + 5" is an actual organization, which it is not. Rather it is a neologism from a news article and used satirically.

-mattawa (added 15:58, 5 April 2007)

The article states that the G8+5 is a 'group of leaders' rather than an organisation. The G8 itself is not a formally constituted organisation either. As with all Wikipedia articles, help in improving the content and composition would be welcome. Gralo 13:18, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the deletion of this article. Not only it lacks sources but it is also a bit innacurate, e.g. South Africa is not a relevant leading economy.

Don't you believe it's better to improve this article, instead of deleting it? I think the proposal is usefull, but it need a cleanliness and more sources.-Frank.

I agree that it would be better to improve the article rather than delete it. The article is far from perfect, but it hardly warrants a deletion, as it is clear that the writer did not make the material up. Furthermore, the claim that the article is "unimportant and not factual" is not based on any solid evidence. Also, whether or not South Africa is "a relevant leading economy" is insignificant in light of the fact that world leaders recognize it as a member of the G8+5. That is, if for whatever reason one believes that S. Africa should be removed from the G8+5, then the talk page is not the place to vent one's frustration. Remember, Wikipedia is supposed to be a depository of information; it is not a forum for people with an ax to grind.--Ocram

G5 Flag

Where does that come from? Isn't it orginal research? --170.66.1.233 (talk) 16:38, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Requested move 26 September 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved G8 Research Group → G7 Research Group and European Union and the G8 → European Union and the G7 per clear consensus. G8+5 was not moved since a few particpants noted that the G8+5 hasn't met since the Group became the G7, thus there are no sources calling it that. -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:45, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

---

• G8+5 → G7+5
• G8 Research Group → G7 Research Group
• European Union and the G8 → European Union and the G7

– The title of this article is obsolete since 2014, because after the expulsion of Russia from the G8, the group has again become the G7, and therefore the article should be renamed as the G7+5. (The "G8+5" should be put as a history section of the renamed (and enlarged) article.) The expulsion of Russia looks more or less permanent (since neither side will budge on the issue of the annexation of Crimea, the reason for its expulsion), so the request can be made. Artoxx (talk) 17:23, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

• Procedural comment. Combined 3 RMs on G8/G7 into 1 discussion here. Reasoning given for G8 Research Group also specified: ... Much more importantly, this group is using the name "G7 Information Centre" in its website, even though its website retains the address http://www.g8.utoronto.ca/ . — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 23:52, 26 September 2016 (UTC) --Relisting. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 08:20, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose until such time as someone presents good evidence that the common name has changed. Dicklyon (talk) 02:52, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support The old names including "G8" are no longer in current use. The "G8" has in effect ceased to exist in 2014 and the remaining 7 members have reconstituted themselves as the "G7". In the news outlets and other recent sources, the names "G7", "G7 Research Group" and "'European Union' and 'G7'" are now exclusively used; the "G8" is used in the past tense and as historical reference. SednaXV (talk) 14:07, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support because i can count...oh and no one calls them the G8 anymore. Dolphx (talk) 20:54, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. There are no sources calling it this, and it has not met up or convened in any way since the Russia thing, or at any other time when there was a G7. For all we know, Russia might rejoin this group on the "5" side, making it G7+6. But until it does reconvene, or sources start referring to it, it remains a historical and inactive grouping, which was and is correctly called G8+5. Anything else, including arguments such as "I can count", is WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:37, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

  Comment - although I'm opposed to the first move for the reasons given here, the second and third would be fine, as per Cuchullain's !vote below. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 15:42, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

• Support. Not only is the G8 defunct, the current G7 and the European Union reconvene as the "European Union and the G7" in their meetings. In addition, the organization "G8 Research Group" renamed itself as the "G7 Information Centre". Sarvathi (talk) 15:35, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose moving G8+5, but I'm amenable to the other two. "G7+5" is frankly an unsuitable name, as there appear to be no sources that have ever used the term. Considering that it hasn't met since Russia was ejected from the G8, changing it now is a bad idea. However, "G7 Research Group" does appear to be in use for that entity group.[1] It's worth pointing out that the organization's website calls it the G7 and G8 Research Group, though this seems to be rarely used by third party sources.. "European Union and the G7" should be fine.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:02, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on G8+5. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070312185053/http://www.globeinternational.org/index.php to http://www.globeinternational.org/index.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080217222220/http://www.bmz.de/de/service/infothek/fach/spezial/index.html to http://www.bmz.de/de/service/infothek/fach/spezial/index.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070205042440/http://www.g8.gov.uk/servlet/Front?pagename=OpenMarket%2FXcelerate%2FShowPage&c=Page&cid=1094235520309 to http://www.g8.gov.uk/servlet/Front?pagename=OpenMarket%2FXcelerate%2FShowPage&c=Page&cid=1094235520309
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070219111314/http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=%2FCulture%2Farchive%2F200702%2FCUL20070216b.html to http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=%2FCulture%2Farchive%2F200702%2FCUL20070216b.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:39, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

"Current leaders" section

Is it really useful to have a section showing the current leaders of the member nations of an organization that no longer exists? Wouldn't it make more sense to show who the national leaders were prior to the dissolution of the G8+5? — Red XIV ^(talk) 05:52, 23 February 2023 (UTC)